Would a road diet improve connections or worsen congestion between Atwater and Silver Lake?

Motorists would lose one traffic lane under some of the proposals for the Glendale-Hyperion Bridge improvement project

Three proposals currently being considered for the $50 million Glendale-Hyperion bridge improvement project now include bike lanes on the 1,200-foot-long span linking Atwater Village and Silver Lake. But in order to make room for bikes, motorists might be squeezed into fewer lanes. Only one proposal calls for keeping all of the four existing traffic lanes. The other proposals envision only three lanes for motor vehicles, with one northbound lanes for traffic headed downhill into Atwater and two southbound lanes for motor vehicles traveling uphill into Silver Lake and Los Feliz. During a recent meeting of the Atwater Village Neighborhood Council, some residents and council members contemplated which neighborhood might fare worse if traffic is forced to be funneled through fewer lanes under a lane reducing road diet.

“I would be very worried for Glendale Boulevard businesses [in Atwater],” said one neighborhood resident at the meeting. “If you are going to have two car lanes [into Silver Lake] and only one [into Atwater], that’s really going to prevent and really cut down business. I think the council should be concerned about that.”

But one Atwater council member said Silver Lake might have more to lose in the form of increased traffic congestion as evening traffic on Hyperion would be squeezed down to two lanes as it hits the bridge. “It would probably worsen traffic in the Silver Lake area,” he said. “For folks who live in Silver Lake, I think they would find it awful.”

The Atwater council like others in the area are being asked to weigh in on the proposals before the city makes a final decision. How would eliminating a lane on the bridge impact traffic flow and congestion on surrounding streets? Know one knows for sure and the city is currently conducting a traffic study that will also be taken into account as the three proposals are evaluated.

The proposal that keeps two traffic lanes in each direction – as well as two bike lanes – includes a single sidewalk only on one side of the span, raising fears that pedestrians would simply walk in the bike lane or gutter. Many who expressed their opinions at last week’s meeting seemed to prefer the proposal that included two sidewalks and two bike lanes. But providing room for sidewalks on both sides of the bridge – as well as leaving enough for bike lanes, buffer zones and a median strip – means a lane of traffic gets squeezed out.

“Something has to give,” said Segio Lambarri, Government Relations Chair of the Atwater Neighborhood Council, which will eventually have to vote on which proposal it favors. “Either we lose a [traffic] lane or we lose a sidewalk.”

But some persons – primarily cycling and pedestrian advocates – said losing a traffic lane would not be so bad. Eric Bruins, with the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, argued that the loss of a northbound traffic lane into Atwater won’t have a big impact on traffic counts because a long stretch of the road between Atwater and Silver Lake does not have signals, allowing traffic to flow freely. In fact, the reduction in northbound lanes might help slow down speeding traffic into Atwater, Bruins said. “It may actually calm the traffic going downhill going into Atwater Village,” he said.

Others who favored the three-traffic lane option said the combination of sidewalks on both sides of the bridge and bike lanes would only strengthen ties and encourage pedestrian traffic between Atwater and Silver Lake. “We need to start connecting two cool communities,” said activist Tomas O’Grady.

Exhibit 1 included four traffic lanes, two bike lanes and one sidewalk | City of L.A.

Exhibit 2: Three traffic lanes, two bike lanes and one sidewalk | City of L.A.

Exhibit 3: Three traffic lanes, two bike lanes, two sidewalks | City of L.A.

121 comments

These bike activists are dedicated to destroying NELA. More congestion in the name of recreational cyclists who never seem to appear after the bike lanes are installed. Do none of these folks have to commute in the morning? Are they unaware of the traffic going from NELA into the city, Sunset and below? Madness.

Nice try, eastsidearts, but this isn’t about recreational riding. Do you truly think this is about recreational riding walking or is this your attempt to undermine the cause of the hard-working advocates? This is about equal access and safety. Have you no concern for people of other travel modes or their safety?

Road diets just push more traffic into adjacent neighborhoods where the streets are definitely not able to accommodate the increased traffic. The appeasement of a small bike lobby does not create a better system of transportation. How many cyclists are using the lanes on Colorado? VERY FEW. And it is about recreational cycling. You really think some guy who works in a professional capacity is going to bike DTWN? Or into Hollywood? You folks are crazy.

I am a bicycle commuter who does not own a car. The Hyperion bridge is currently one of the most dangerous stretches of road for cyclists. However, it also connects two of the communities with the heaviest bicycle populations.

Recreational riders will tend to use the LA River Path or other route. Only people moving to and from specific locations would even want to use the bridge. Based on the response to this project, that is a lot of cyclists.

Finally, there is a traffic light at each end of this bridge which creates a bottle neck in traffic. I ride the Rowena/Hyperion and Monon/Hyperion (at Trader Joe’s) intersections every day. It is traffic lights slowing traffic, not bike lanes. Please respect that non-motorized commuters have a right to safe transportation just as drivers do.

Why is it that EVERY time another street is targeted for a road diet, the bike lobbyists start screaming about it being the the “most dangerous” place around? Just a little bit of truth and facts would be appreciated.

Please tell us which streets have had road diets that cyclists have said are the “most dangerous” place around. The Hyperion bridge really is quite dangerous. Rowena and Virgil weren’t as dangerous (especially because there are alternatives to Virgil), but they’ve still been improved as human habitats by the slower car speeds and greater distances between pedestrians and cars.

The Colorado in Eagle Rock, in my opinion, is one place where a road diet made perfect sense. Three lanes each way was excessive, and encouraged speeding and a very unpleasant environment for people wanting to walk/shop/dine on Colorado .. or park… or bike ride.

Yes, though I think the York road diet makes sense too. I drive on that street almost every day at various hours, IMHO I do not notice a significant difference in travel time. Yes, there’s traffic sometimes, but it’s not like the traffic wasn’t there before.

Beyond the considerations for congestion and travel time, we have to also look at what the street is and what it was. York, like many streets in NELA and metro L.A. in general, used to be a street car street. It wasn’t designed for two lanes of private cars in each direction like a Valley street might be. There’s houses and small storefronts and college students that were ill-served by the old configuration.

Eastiside Arts is 100% correct. The bike lobby is only partly in favor of bikes (if at all) — what really has become apparent as we see their tactics and constant newspeak and lies is that they really do have a goal of doing whatever possible to thwart cars no matter what. They aren’t trying to accommodate a demand for biking, there isn’t one to anything near the degree they claim. They instead are trying to exploit the idea of bikers (who really aren’t out there) to block cars and bludgeon people out of them against their will.

The bike lobby is just plain selfish — but they will counter that comment with their newspeak. Their tactics are the same as those of the Tea Party.

If even a small fraction of the bike lobby itself biked everywhere, you would see a lot more people biking on the street. But anyone with eyes can see there are hardly any bikers out there. The bikers can pack a meeting, but they don’t seem to be able to have the same number pack the bike lanes.

We have had bike lanes in Silver Lake for a decade or more now — and there still is hardly anyone who uses them. Oh, the bike lobby keeps insisting they are in huge use, lots and lots of people using them, but anyone who simply looks can see the lie in that.

In this case, gee, they first blocked Rowena, the only route to the freeway from the Hyperion corridor, and now traffic is bumper to bumper the lenght of Hyperion Avenue for hours in the morning and afternoon. And now they want to make that worse by eliminating a lane over the Hyperion Bridge. They lied about their reasons for Rowena — and even when I cited those in another thread about this bridge project to show their hypocrisy, the bike lobby then changed direction and argued that the Rowena road diet wasn’t to help bikers, it was in order to do as much possible to slow down the traffic. Well, that has been accomplished, just look at the traffic jams. And now they want to jam things up even more. And they accuse everyone else of being selfish.

Also, the bikers have already lobbied and gotten two bridges planned to be built across the Los Angeles River simply for them and pedestrians, just north and south of the Hyperion Bridge (well, the one north of Hyperion would also allow horses). Cars are banned from those. Perhaps we in kind should not only not take out a traffic lane on the Hyperion Brige but should also outright ban bikes on it.

The whole bike lobby theory is silly. I’m not part of some lobby, I’m just a person who thinks that all these bike lanes are not a bad idea. I enjoy a nice ride on occasion and really appreciate when there are dedicated bike lanes. I know a lot of people who think like i do (look at the turnout for ciclavia) and yet are not some organized little cabal. If there were more bike lanes, more people would ride. I think it’s better to do something …

I’m sorry it adds a few minutes to your commute, but that seems like a decent trade off for broken limbs.

Epper, there are more bike lanes. And no more are biking than ever. Streets have been taken out for bike lanes allover — yet, there are no more bikers. Your theory is already shown to be bankrupt.

And people making a one-time ride for cyclavia does not mean traffic lanes should be shut down. If you had those kind of numbers biking all the roads every day, you would have something to talk about. But you don’t — almost no one is out there biking, as anyone can see.

Tom, Nic’s comment is the cut-and-paste stinking pile of hyperbole and nonsense that we’ve come to expect from bike-haters. Rowena works fine, it’s certainly not “bumper to bumper for hours” and it’s safer than ever. The old configuration made no sense considering there’s residences and a school there. Those bridges he’s talking about are OK for recreational use but not travel, they not substitutes for a direct route for pedestrians or cyclists, and they were certainly not asked for by any “bike lobby.”

Please measure (with an actual clock, not with your imagination) how many hours the traffic is bumper-to-bumper on Hyperion. I don’t tend to go through there during rush hour (I don’t have a masochistic desire to experience traffic at its worst and make it even worse) but I’ve never seen it bumper-to-bumper – cars flow when the light is green.

Please count how many people you see on bikes in a given day on Sunset Blvd. I’ve done the count while biking through Hollywood on Fountain Ave (which doesn’t have a lane, but is designated as a “bicycle route”). Every time I’ve done the count, I’ve averaged about 20 cars for every 1 bike – sure it’s not a lot of bikes, but I’m sure it’s a lot more than it was a decade ago. And it adds up to hundreds of people every day on just the one street.

“We have had bike lanes in Silver Lake for a decade or more now — and there still is hardly anyone who uses them. Oh, the bike lobby keeps insisting they are in huge use, lots and lots of people using them, but anyone who simply looks can see the lie in that.”

A little exercise for those who continue to pimp the “look, there’s no bikers!” argument: Look up L.A. on Google Maps. Put on the “Bicycling” overlay. Now ask yourself this: Would you drive a car if you felt comfortable doing it on the green “bike friendly” streets? The reason why usage isn’t higher is because the city has made it tremendously uncomfortable and inconvenient to use anything but a private car in L.A.”Look, there’s no bikers!” is self-contained, circular reasoning. The idea is to create a better environment for other road users, bicyclists included.

As a driver myself, I’m mystified at why you wouldn’t want to make it easier for people to travel by other means. Fewer cars means better traffic flow and easier parking for drivers. Bike lanes are particularly good because they reduce potential conflict for the same space.

The inmates are running the asylum if they cut these lanes down. Just take a drive down Rowena art rush hour or NOW Virgil. Its a fucking mess thanks to these feel good measures. These bridges are designed to move car traffic not to make prius drivers vegans and bicyclists feel good. Please call your CD office and say no more traffic jams. LA is a car town and lets leave it to the TRAFFIC ENGINEERS to keep us moving. Road diets are just some PC bullshit. If we are going to give up lanes than give them up to street cars and when we have mass transit that works then we can do the bike lanes. LA is just too spread out for these BIKE LOBBY schemes.

Please – traffic engineers are designing these plans. The bridge flows at 55 mph for much of the day. It’s only about 30 minutes in the morning and evening that there’s ever traffic problems here. If you really want to avoid traffic, change your schedule slightly. The rest of us don’t want to suffer for 95% of the day so that you can have a slightly faster drive in the other 5% of the day.

As a long-time resident of Atwater Village, I have to agree with ekirby, vis, et al. The posted bridge speed limit is 35 MPH. The speed limit leading up the bridge in both Atwater Village and SilverLake is 35 MPH. I drive that bridge to/from work every day, and I’m all in favor of whatever gets drivers to SLOW down. It’s not the autobahn. It’s a bridge that connects two communities.

The average speeds on the bridge is over 55mph according to Jeff the Engineer who did the traffic studies on the bridge. He said so at the community meeting. The bridge is designed for 50 mph now. I ride my car across the bridge at 35 mph and the nasty looks I get from people passing me easily at 55 mph are legendary.

The bridge as it is designed now is dangerous for walkers and bicyclists and drivers. For 50 years it has favored one mode of transportation. This bridge can be a destination for people coming to the river and shopping either side. As it is now it serves cut through traffic to get to the 5 or other cities to the west and est of Atwater and Silverlake.

This all about calming traffic. When we add the time spent waiting at lights our speed goes way down, to something like 19 MPH. But there are many lead foot fools who go as fast as they can down the hill and over the bridge to only slam on the brakes and wait at the light. The idea of reworking our city; to make it a safer, calmer and more enjoyable place is exactly why we need road diets. There are many motorist who do not use bicycles because it is not safe.

Really? You think when they designed the bridge they were anticipating cars going 50 – 55 mph? Don’t think so. Just used the bridge this afternoon went 40 no one passing me at high speeds. This is such a myth,

Kenny, where is your proof that people drive 55 mph over the bridge? Or did that just materialize out of thin air? I’ve lived in Atwater for 20 years and use the bridge daily and I’ve never seen a car do 55 mph over the bridge. Not during rush hours and not during the day.

With all due respect who ever was speaking must have pulled that out of thin air. Like I said I use the bridge daily and have never seen the “average” speed be anywhere near 55 mph. Just a suggestion take a drive over the bridge, and try, just try to reach 55 mph going over the bridge. Who ever was speaking didn’t do an honest survey of speeds across the bridge, OR has a certain “agenda” to push.

I’ll let you know next time I drive across the bridge. I’m fairly sure that last time I drove, I was going at 45, and I was being passed by other cars. It’s really easy to lose track of just how fast you’re going when you’re on the downhill segment there. Most drivers don’t stare at the spedometer, and gauge their speed based on visual cues from trees, lampposts, other cars, etc. When you’re on the bridge, most of those cues are gone, and you’re suddenly going downhill without realizing it, so you speed up.

Your lying. The bridge traffic does NOT flow at 55 much of the day. That is NOT what the report said. Standard lying by the bike lobby.

As if it being done by traffic engineers means there is no worry about traffic jams, then why do we now have traffic jams on the streets where this has been done?! Gee, Virgil was a traffic jam bumper to bumper in the middle of the day from the moment they started the road diet there.

No, your lying … and your spelling not to good. I’ve been on Virgil in the middle of the day and there was no traffic jam. I’ve also been on the bridge when people were going quite fast, maybe only 53, but much faster than the posted limit.

Stop it. How can you expect to make a point when what you write is actually incorrect?

Well, Epper, I’ve been on Virgil too — definitely crowded there now that they took out the lane.

And while you might have found an isolated speeder on the bridge, that hardly means that is the general flow of the traffic. I drive that bridge all the time and frankly, I find it difficult to go as fast as the speed limit because the other cars often are not doing so.

You cannot say you found an isolated speeder and extrapolate to say that that means all the traffic is going that speed!

Having only one lane into Atwater would be a congestion nightmare. If you’ve ever driven north into Atwater Village you’ve experienced the left turn lane light congestion that can back up traffic. The left lane light is not only used as a turn lane but also as a U-turn lane for people trying to get on the northbound 5 onramp or to Riverside Blvd. Having only one lane would not allow motorists to move freely. The extra lane allows people to bypass the left lane light congestion. I suggest bicyclists utilize the LA river bike path or Riverside blvd to get into Atwater Village or Silver Lake, There are safer options that wouldn’t turn the bridge into a congestion nightmare.

The LA river bike path and Riverside don’t go into either Atwater or Silver Lake – they go along the border between the two neighborhoods, but don’t get you to any of the residences or shops. The specific point of these lanes and sidewalks is so that people from one side can get across to the other, not so that people can go along the border between the two neighborhoods.

You might as well say that motorists should take the 5 or Riverside to get from Silver Lake to Atwater, and leave the bridge to people on foot or bike.

Please clarify your suggestion. I say that because I know that to ride on Hyperion through SilverLake and across the bridge to Atwater Village, Fletcher is not an option. To do as you suggest would require a several-mile jog south along surface streets to get to Fletcher, only to double back north on the bike path for several miles. Is that what you have in mind?

Sorry, Kenny, bridges are there to provide door-to-door service. The Hyperion bridge doesn’t give door-to-door service to the location whether those other two bike bridges will be either, but you aren’t arguing that we should allow cars on those bridges so they can have door-to-door service to those spots. And either way, their are bikeways at those bike bridges to get you wherever it is yo want to go.

Kenny, there is an exit from the river path at Los Feliz Blvd which does connect to Atwater. I also believe there was some sort of bike connection from the river path into Atwater included in all 3 plans. It seems to me what would be safest on the bridge would be to have an actual barrier between auto traffic and bike / pedestrian traffic rather than 2 lanes for bikes/pedestrians with no barrier. And to address your assertion that there is only traffic for 1/2 hour per day on Hyperion, I challenge you to take a look at Hyperion from 5pm to 8pm – it’s often at a standstill already (and not particularly helped by the road diet on Rowena). To create a bottleneck on the Hyperion bridge would just exacerbate the problem

For the river path – you’re missing the point if you say that an exit from the path at Los Feliz Blvd gets you to Atwater. I want a route to get from Silver Lake to Atwater and back. Telling me to take the river path is like telling someone in a car to take the 5. I need to know what street I will take in and out of the neighborhoods, not what expressway I will cross. The Los Feliz Blvd bridge is nearly as bad as the Hyperion bridge on a bike – and on the Silver Lake side you’re at the bottom of Los Feliz Blvd, which everyone in any vehicle knows is one of the worst traffic problems in the entire east side of Los Angeles, and has extremely narrow lanes. Hyperion itself, once you’re off the bridge, is actually only moderately scary, and quickly lets you get onto Griffith Park Blvd to get into the neighborhood. Los Feliz Blvd needs to you to go up a long hill to get to Griffith Park Blvd, and you still have to wait forever at that light. (There’s also an exit from the river path at Fletcher, but Fletcher is pretty far out of the way unless you’re going from Atwater to Echo Park, or to Silver Lake Blvd.)

I agree with you about the barrier between cars and bike/ped – there’s a crash barrier included in all of the diagrams, but for some reason they’re putting it between the bike lane and the sidewalk, rather than between the car lanes and the bike lane, which would make a lot more sense to me.

As for the amount of time that Hyperion is congested, I’ll have to check it out more carefully. I’m open to the possibility that I’m wrong about my estimate of how long it is jammed. I’ll have to ask my partner – his commute involves driving up Hyperion and Rowena to the 2 every morning, and doing the U-turn on Glendale to get back over the bridge every evening. I think he even went in at around 8:45 am today – I’ll have to ask him how long it took him to get to Pasadena, but I’m pretty sure it’s always been between 20 and 30 minutes, except when there’s a collision. (He tends to come home close to 8 pm to avoid traffic in Pasadena.)

Also, the backup for the U-turn lane will ease when fewer freeway exiters need to take it (they’ll have a left-turn light directly onto Glendale Blvd), and the road already contains extra lanes by the time you get to the turn lane. In fact, for the entire block from Hollydale to Glenhurst, the street has 4 lanes plus the turn lane. For the entire block before that (from Greensward to Hollydale), the street has 4 lanes, and I’ve never seen the backup for the turn lane extend that whole block.

Presumably, it would only cause problems if the turn lane backs up farther than that. There will have to be some complicated merging geometry to get the bike lane and sidewalk across the merging lanes of Glendale Blvd from the right, but that isn’t the problem you’re talking about.

School kids who attend King and Marshall go across there everyday. Why should the bridge be unsafe for anyone who is not in a car? If cars don’t like the changes there’s Los Feliz and Fletcher. People coming from Silverlake who bike and walk don’t have those options.

It’s not just school kids. The bridge has been there since the ’20’s. Both sides of the bridge have been used by pedestrians since the bridge was built. The residents and stakeholders who have used the bridge for generations also need safe walkways on both sides of the bridge. So, this isn’t a recent development. At some point, access to the Waverly bridge was closed off on the south side of the Hyperion bridge. This created an attractive nuisance, in that the sidewalk narrows to maybe 18 inches under the Waverly overpass. And yet, people still use it. So, the need is there for sidewalks on BOTH sides of the bridge. People drive cars, but I venture to say, that they are more important than their cars.

Let’s all recall that the same people here suggesting this will cause a traffic nightmare are the same people that predicted Colorado Bl, Virgil Ave, York Bl, and Rowena Ave road diets would cause carmageddon. (still waiting for that to happen, and for all the businesses to go broke).

We have to ask ourselves what is more important, safety or speed? That is what we will be deciding on.

oh boy, what do you mean by “east side?” 😉 Let’s try to be civil here, Flo Max. York is a little slower but only during rush hour. However, I do think the gains in safety are well worth it. I have had friends hospitalized by careless drivers so I understand why there’s a push to make the streets safer, even at the expense of commute times. Are the safety benefits not worth it to you? Are there any measures you support to improve safety? or equal access?

@FloMax — I live very close to Colorado and commute most days at 8am. You are incorrect that Colorado is a “nightmare.” There is a bit more congestion sometimes.

There is also a lot less crazy driving. I’m talking about speeding, drivers who used to get in little races where the (former) 3 lanes merged down to 2 lanes, and drivers who used to weave back and forth across the three lanes.

Additionally, it’s a lot easier to cross the boulevard since the speeds have dropped closer to 35mph. The new ped crossings also help.

If speeding is a problem, that is the responsibility of the police to enforce. Seems stupid to cause congestion, and there by more pollution with cars idling in traffic and inconvenience 98% of the other drivers for a few speeders. Once speeders see that the police are out in force writing speeding tickets, they’ll get the message. And if not,they’ll get another ticket. This road diet idea is just utterly stupid.

Speeding is part of the problem. For various reasons, enforcement is not going to happen. I think you’ve lived here a long time…so have I…I have never seen significant speed limit enforcement in LA. Some hypotheses — The cops have bigger items on their plate, trained cops are very expensive, and using them for this purpose will alienate them from the population. I’m sure they hate speed enforcement drives.

In any case, the problem on Colorado Blvd (formerly 3 lanes each way) is not really addressable by enforcement alone, because the road design encouraged speeding. Hence, almost all drivers exceeded the speed limit.

Behavior problems are not solved by laws and enforcement. Those things are at best band-aids. What you need is an environment that encourages people to behave safely, rather than one that encourages people to behave dangerously. Besides, it’s much cheaper to just put in some trees, paint some new lanes, and arrange some asphalt differently, rather than paying cops to sit out on that street every single day. (I suppose cameras might change the equation, and allow enforcement to replace proper street design, but cameras have been shut down by the courts.)

York and Colorado are most definitely NOT “nightmares.” In fact both streets are hotter than ever as far as new businesses and events and national notoriety. Even then traffic is barely different from a decade ago. If you have real evidence of these “nightmares” outside of your own biased impressions then I’d like to see it.

Satls – I guess you don’t drive on colorado or york. traffic has significantly worsened on both of those streets. Accidents are also up on both. The city half assed the job on both and made a unsafe situation. those projects were more about getting bike lane numbers up than creating anything useful. Road diet is not a smart program and needs to be reconsidered; its equal to putting an person on a diet while locking them into a 31 flavors. I am all for bikes, it is just that we need to have a better approach. one where we remove the idea of road share (for the most part) and create a separate holistic bike and metro system. LA is too large with people traveling over 20 miles to work – in many cases. LA is also to densely populated to force bikes onto roads that were created in the 20s. we need to open the LA river all the way to bikes. We need to select roads that are under used and have them become bike only.

I do drive on both those streets, but my commute only catches the tail end of rush hour so maybe I’m not seeing the worst. I didn’t realize accidents were up, can we get a source/document on the uptick in accidents? The only literature I’ve read demonstrates that road diets are good for safety.

I agree we need separated networks for travel modes (pedestrians have sidewalks, why not give bikes their own space so they aren’t competing with cars for the same space? It only makes sense.)

One tiny correction: the roads weren’t made in the 20’s, and bicyclists actually pioneered the paving of LA streets with the “good roads” movement (sorry, I’m an LA history nerd)

Actually if we apply logic we should be asked what the point is in having a transportation system reliant on dwindling fossil fuels. If we expect the population to grow things will only get worse if we fail to provide alternatives to cars. Denmark, Holland, and Germany are some of the most advanced countries in the world and have great bike and transit systems. Why not in LA?

Let me get this right Salts, you’re suggesting that we cause MORE traffic congestion, and more cars sitting idling in traffic due to that congestion and thus more air pollution because Los Angeles isn’t like Germany, Denmark and Holland? If you have a beef with the fossil fuel industry, forcing people to sit in congested traffic sure isn’t the answer. Have you ever seen the nightmare at the traffic light by Trader Joe’s in the evening? People block the intersection at that light all the time, preventing people who want to make a left going east to Atwater from doing so. Now just try to imagine what the traffic will be like if they enact a lane diet. It also seems to me you should also have a beef with the unbridled construction of mega apartments which adds more traffic and cars to the already impacted streets of Los Angeles.

What is your solution? To not take any action in the face of climate change? I don’t doubt there are short term losses in the form of traffic delays but the long term impact of providing transportation options will be revealed. Portland and Vancouver are two North American cities that have invested in car alternatives and it has paid off by having people switch from cars to transit and bikes. And these cities certainly aren’t undesirable cities.

You compare Los Angeles with Portland and Vancouver? How do you make that leap? There is NOTING similar that those cites have in common with L.A. First of all L.A. is spread out, people commute to work. So comparing other countries and other US cities with L.A. is kind of pointless. I’ve already suggested ONE possibility of cutting back on traffic, and that is limiting the construction of mega apartments. These monstrosities only add more traffic to the streets. Limiting growth HAS to be an integral part of the solution to L.A. traffic problem. And it would seem to me you would agree since you brought up fossil fuels. But forcing elderly people to ride bikes or take public transportation that really doesn’t serve their needs seems to be a rather short sighted approach. In a perfect L.A. yeah it would be nice to see 50% less cars on the road. But that’s not going to happen. As far as “global warming” (which I think is real) having 1000’s of cars sitting idling in traffic because someone came up with the goofy idea of making the streets more congested with a lane diet, instead of moving traffic along seems to be utter madness. It would also seem to me that those that do ride bikes would prefer not to breath cars spewing carbon monoxide as they sit in traffic caused by an asinine road diet idea.

While in general, I’m a supporter of bike lanes where appropriate* , I have to agree with VIS on the point that limiting population growth has to be an integral part of our congestion problems (and our water problems, now that that’s in the news).

The simple fact in LA is that the vast majority of new residents, whether they live in transit oriented developments or not, will own and use cars for many of their trips. More people == more cars.. period. Any other conclusion is simply fantasy.

*appropriateness of bike lanes in each situation is certainly debatable. Personally, I’d like to see more lanes.. and connecting existing bike lanes. I bike commute to work several days a week

Salts you said in the above comment that the roads weren’t built in the 1920. Just a slight correction for you, the Glendale-Hyperion Bridge was constructed in 1927 by vote of the citizens that lived in Atwater Village at the time and was completed in February 1929. Since this thread is about the bridge and its future, I just thought I’d correct you on when it was built.

VIS thank you, you saved me the trip too google because I was pretty sure that bridge was from the 20’s – along with much of the east side. be careful old boy is a bit of a history nut – lol nice try. salts my guess is you weren’t born here. not a big deal I am just a bit of a people nut. I also think our buddy salts is a bit agenda driven because he is a bike activist that really wants us all feel the same way. the reality is forcing bikes and cars to co-exist is bad. protect the majority but defend the minority.

“LA is also to densely populated to force bikes onto roads that were created in the 20s.” This comment, to which I replied to, never specifies a reference to Hyperion Bridge, or any bridge for that matter. The statement is ambiguous and generalized.

The bike lanes on Colorado Boulevard were installed in October 2013, about 4 months ago. LAPD is fairly slow about reporting collision data to SWITRS or other places where aggregate data is publicly available, so it seems hard to believe that anyone has data about whether collisions have increased. Even if they have, it would be far too early to conclude that any increase represents a trend as opposed to a statistical blip.

Why not have a center lane that changes directions to accomodate traffic – inbound in the morning, outbound in the evening and not in use when it’s not really needed that much. This works just fine in many places the world over. Then everybody would be happy.

I see this work in cities all over the world. I’ve even seen it used in Cleveland. Think about that for a second. Why LA doesn’t adopt center lanes that change direction during rush hours is beyond me. Well, it’s probably bc of NIMBYs. But almost every major thoroughfare could benefit from this, from Glendale Blvd to Beverly Blvd.

Yes! That’s a great idea, if there’s really a directionality to the traffic. But which direction would it be? Do more people cross that bridge driving from a home in Hollywood to work in Glendale, or driving from a home in Glendale to work in Hollywood?

Los Angeles does have a lot of streets with variable lanes, but instead of center lanes switching directions, we tend to do it with parking lanes where one side is no parking in the morning and the other side is no parking in the afternoon.

I am usually against road diets (Rowena for instance), but the Virgil road diet actually makes sense. It is one of the most walkable neighborhoods in the city. It isn’t just about the bike lanes, but about the slower moving traffic and safety.

The community wanted the road diet. I was at the meeting, not one person was against it. They were tired of the speeding,collisions and unsafe conditions. Drivers cannot be trusted to drive the speed limit. The Virgil lanes make sense the traffic is much slower. But as with everything, we have choices. Drivers can take another route. There’s plenty of streets the continue to have speeding traffic on them.

I never used to go down there, but I’ve actually biked on those lanes about a dozen times since the road diet went in. The street suddenly feels like Valencia St in San Francisco – a commercial street in a nice neighborhood, that’s a few blocks away from the big major street with the subway line running underneath it.

They took out traffic lanes in the 2nd Street tunnel, and now I avoid it like plague — four lanes down to two? Don’t think that’s a great idea at all. Are bike riders using the new bike lanes…just a few, very, very few. Worth it? Don’t think so.

No longer using the tunnel? Then the road diet worked! You are now avoiding the 2nd street tunnel, thus lessening the amount of cars that go through it. That’s great news for traffic in general. Road diets encourage people to eliminate unnecessary trips, usually by making it easier to travel by other modes. Success!

There is more than enough roadway available into and out of downtown. Traffic back-ups happen in downtown all the time. Bike lanes in the 2nd street tunnel did not cause them nor did they make it measurable worse (a few minuets delay is not “measurable worse” nor worth the danger of speeding traffic). Bike lanes DO provide options for people who are sick of traffic and parking hassles.

Road diet is the dumbest idea I’ve heard of. But they’ll go ahead and screw things up with more congestion, all the while building more apartments in the arrea with more traffic using the already congested streets. Brilliant, just brilliant.

You’re finally figuring it out. That’s what the City plans to do. Capacity is at the limits and cars are expensive for the city to keep on the streets. They are an insatiable animal. There’s never enough parking or road space to satisfy them. Try to increase capacity the roads get congested. No one wants parking structures in their hood plus land is too expensive for that. Many cities are moving away from land grabs for building streets. Look at the 405 how long do you think it will take for people to begin sittings in traffic after all that construction? I’ll give it a couple of hours. 1 billion for nothing.

There is a lot of data from around the U.S. that shows that road diets can often improve car travel times. Just because you can go 45 mph between lights doesn’t mean you’re moving at a faster average speed than you would be if you just cruised in to work at a steady 15mph. Time yourself in the morning and calculate your average speed – in LA it is unlikely to be anything greater than 13 mph on surface streets during peak hours. A road diet can smooth out the ride and measurably improve traffic flow.

Will this road diet do that? I have a feeling that motorists will continue to go 45mph on this bridge. With the road diet we;ll at least have some safe space for people to walk, push a stroller, ride a wheelchair, or ride a bike across it.

Road diet is bad idea it creates traffic open your google maps app and look at traffic on Virgil it has gotten worse, before ir you could remember it was normal now Hyperion is next. Its not like theres no accidents anymore now theres more rear end accidents on Virgil because of traffic move and stop, move and stop.

Three traffic lanes for vehicles with the center lane used for both directions. It works in Europe . From midnight until noon the center lane would be used for traffic moving towards Los Angeles. From noon until midnight the center lane would be used for traffic moving towards Glendale. This would leave more space for pedestrians and bicycles.

This so call road dieting just ruins traffic flow. Making room for bicycles and pedistrians is a waste of time. People are lazy to walk far, they try find the closest spot to their destination without walking so much so what makes them more people will want to walk across the bridge. And for bicycles, I respect them but this is just ridiculous. Like someone said, they pack every meeting with their group but not when they are on the street. I have seen Virgil gone from bad to worse because of the bike lane and I have yet seen one or more bicycle using it. Both sides are going to be impacted by traffic. Los Angeles keeps growing everyday and more and more cars are on the road. The car to bicycle ratio will never be equal. Cars will always be on top. And cars do speed down the bridge but it varies. Some go 35 while others go faster and that is normal on every street. The road dieting is going to make things worse. I hope the city makes a good choice.

The DOT shouldn’t be encouraging speeding anywhere in the central city, that’s what the freeways were built for. And while it’s difficult to speed on Vermont, I think Hoover could use some traffic calming too.

My apologies, I was being facetious when I suggested to go to Vermont or Hoover to speed. I don’t want anyone to speed in LA. Leave your place a little earlier to reach your destination on time. You can’t speed on Vermont anyway because of congestion. Virgil Village is winning so hard. I saw a group of white women walking in VV after 10pm last week………

This is an equal access issue. Should brown children crossing the bridge to and from school be able to access both sides of the bridge and walk to school in dignity or should the bridge be the exclusive domain of Atwater and Silver Lake Prius’ and SUV’s with not just one BUT 2 lanes in both directions with no accommodations whatsoever for bikes? This is simply an equal access issue. Be on the right side of history.

Have no idea why you’ve decided to turn this into a racial/class issue. Plenty of non “brown” and middle / upper middle class kids attend King and Marshall (even if they are not the majority) This is an issue of traffic flow plan and simple. If you had bothered to look at the plan you would see that there would be 2 bike lanes, a pedestrian walkway that is much safer than the one currently in place, while maintaining 2 lanes of traffic in both directions. To get to King or Marshall a student (regardless of the color of their skin) would at most have to cross Glendale once, which is really not such a huge imposition considering that the crossing itself will be must safer than it had been in the past.

This is an equal access issue. Race/class are always factors in urban justice cases like these. Sorry, I’m sure you’d wish it would all go away. But do you think that if this bridge were in Beverly Hills we’d be having this discussion about the endangerment of children crossing this bridge without a sidewalk on both sides?

Sorry, but a compromise is in order. Maintaining 2 lanes of traffic in each direction – with a narrower lane to “calm” traffic and a pedestrian walkway that is shielded from traffic is a pretty darn good option. I’ll give you that it is a question of access, but the 2 lane solution is the least intrusive for motorists while exponentially improving the situation for pedestrians. Race and class have no place in this discussion. BTW the topography of Beverly Hills is completely different from Silver Lake/Atwater.

Drivers not being asked to give anything up is not a compromise, unless you mean the walking and bicycling facilities are going to be compromised. Removing an existing sidewalk compromises pedestrian access. Narrow bike lanes squeezed in compromise bicyclist comfort and safety. So what are drivers compromising because they own the road now and won’t lose anything.

Wide bike lanes and preserving sidewalks will enhance safety for more vulnerable users. Your safety as a driver is not compromised by removing a lane. In fact, removing a lane will likely improve safety for drivers too!

Salts, the lanes for motorists will be narrowed, effectively forcing drivers to slow down. Everyone also seems to agree that neither of the current sidewalks in place are safe for pedestrians. (Any observer can see they are far too narrow.) A single shielded (by a bike lane) walkway for pedestrians will be much safer for those crossing the bridge. Bikers will still receive their improved bike lanes – seems like a pretty good improvement for all concerned. Both Bikers and Pedestrians receive a safer route over the bridge and motorists are forced to slow down but without a bottleneck. No one a this point is advocating for there to be no bike lanes or to maintain the current unsafe sidewalk situation, only that traffic not be made unbearable by a scheme that will help the relatively small number of bikers and pedestrians at the expense of the exponentially larger number of motorists. (And the ratio of motorists to bikers and pedestrians is not likely to change all that much in the future despite the militant advocacy of the anti-car zealots) As for reduced lanes improving safety, I’ve seen the situation on Rowena worsen due to impatient drivers running red lights during rush hour when children are crossing to Ivanhoe. I was, in fact, almost hit by a car running the light at Silver Lake when walking my child to school.

The agencies responsible for this project have stated over and over again that there is no traffic congestion on this portion of the road. In fact, they say in their own IS/EA report that during construction they will remove a lane in each direction and based on peak hour traffic counts expect no delay to motorists.

There is no prospect of future car traffic growth along this corridor as well – this is how the bridge complex designers justified the air quality & traffic impacts of building a Tustin-style highway bridge in the middle of two bustling commercial and residential districts.

This really is about equity: to make the child with $5 shoes equal in access and safety to the person driving by in a $90,000 luxury car.

I have come to the conclusion that the reduction in traffic lanes is Los Angeles’ attempt of a Dutch, Danish or Swiss urban model: make driving cost as much of your time and money as possible, in the hopes that congestion will be “self-limiting”.

So much stick, precious little carrot. I’m tired of euphemisms like “road diet”.

I do think the assessments of what existing capacity is taken from one user/moving group, while simultaneously newly granted to another, is out of balance.

Bike lanes, and their advocates take a lot of heat lately because as traffic is constricted, bike lanes are added. But I believe the appearance of bike lanes is concomitant to “traffic calming”. Bikers and drivers need not be opposed to each other. But LA is adapting a half-assed model to save money, by merely painting lines on the road between motorized vehicles and parking lanes or curbs, instead of adopting something like the Dutch approach of specific bike lanes which are separate from the road, and separate from sidewalks. Bicycles are a unique and worthy transportation class and deserve better that the current LA model which is cheap and expedient.

Foolish humans LA is not a town for people ! Its a town for metal and cars and morbidly obese fat fattys if you want to bike around and live in fantasy land move to a real city, Los angeles is an art project not a real city fools.

Since The Eastsider LA has decided to make coverage of this project a fact-free project, I thought it would be helpful to stick the following here. What follows below is an analysis by the agencies proposing this bridge project of the impact, during construction, on traffic. Please note that during construction, based on current and future traffic counts and projections removing one lane in each direction (which is what the bike lane & sidewalk option proposes) will have NO impact on car travel times nor delay even at peak hour.

“Construction of the proposed project would not increase traffic, but would temporarily reduce the capacity of the affected streets because there would be some lane closures.” […] “Some voluntary diversion of Hyperion Avenue through traffic (between San Fernando Road and Rowena Avenue) utilizing Fletcher Drive or Los Feliz could occur but should not be substantial due to the additional travel distances, additional signalized intersections, and peak hour congestions.”

Just checked out the report and want to make a few observations 1) The environmental report was based on the original proposal with no bike lanes, 1 pedestrian walkway, and 2 lanes of traffic in each direction – the bike lanes referred to are the ones connecting the L.A. River path to Atwater.

2) The effect on “traffic” of the closing of lanes during construction, refers to the number of cars utilizing the bridge not “congestion” during peak hours. These are two different concepts.

3) What the report does to refer to is whether mitigation would be needed on a permanent basis ” Because the proposed project would not permanently affect traffic volume/capacity relationships along the viaduct or surrounding area, would not increase operational congestion at intersections, would not be a traffic generator, and would not affect local or regional traffic service standards or congestion management requirements, adverse impacts would not occur.” Note it says “permanently affect” inferring that traffic disruption will occur during the construction process. Again note this is based on the original proposal of 2 lanes of traffic in each direction and no bike lanes.

Nice cherry picking of your facts ubrayj02.

And why the nastiness and name calling? Everybody seems to agree on the need for bike lanes and better pedestrian access. All some are asking for is that traffic in the area not be adversely affected.

All these crunchy, 20 somethings so desperate to turn LA into Portland or Brooklyn. Ugh. I would love to see a more walkable city, I would love to work a short biking distance away. But my commute is not that easy, and my knees are jacked up from my stint in the Army, so I’m not going to be Lance Armstrongin’ my way to work anytime soon. Instead of making a compromise, a lot of these bike riders sound completely selfish and full of themselves. They want to shape these neighborhoods to suit their personal lifestyle instead of taking into account others’. Change is good, but you also have to consider the viewpoint of people that need to rely on cars, and realize it’s the majority in this city. In fighting for your rights as a bicyclist, you can’t completely discount the others, and approach it with this self-righteous attitude. Most of these super vocal bicyclists strike me as privileged, snarky little kids, and willfully ignorant to working class types.

Catering to the very small population of cyclists is bullshit. Mass transit is the only solution.

Ah, you’d love to see a more walkable city, just not willing to fight for it. Firstly, nobody is taking your car away, so drive all you want. Nobody is suggesting the physically challenged must bike (though admittedly, bicycling is a low impact activity that doesn’t require much strength). Nobody is suggesting that everyone must ride a bike to work, but biking should certainly be a safe and enjoyable option for those that can make it an option (which it is not at the moment). And if not bicycling to work, why can’t bicycling be a safe and enjoyable experience for OTHER trips (going to the market, going to a friend’s house, going to restaurants/businesses, dropping kids off at school, going to community events, going to rail station/bus stop, etc…) Love your tired and cliche jab at bicycling by referring to it as “Lance Armstrongin,'” you don’t sound snarky or willfully ignorant AT ALL. Funny, I never “Lance Armstrong” to work. I simply ride in my worth clothes, pedal slowly, and get to work without huffing and puffing. Nor do I Lance Armstrong to the market, just get my bags and ride on over– never have to worry about parking at Trade Joe’s or anywhere else.

So mass transit is the only solution? Certainly you must know bicycling can be a means of reaching transit stops that may be too far to walk to. There is no single solution, but the way the streets look today we’ve tried making the automobile the only solution and it hasn’t done us a lot of good. I’d say catering to fossil fuel dependent transportation in an age of climate change is bullshit, but that’s just me. I’m sure you don’t believe we have any responsibility to change our lives for the good of the environment or future generations.

I believe many people have lost sight of the fact that each of the exhibits the city presented will incorporate two bike lanes at least five feet wide. The real question is whether you want four traffic lanes or two, seven to eight foot wide bike lanes? As for the sidewalk, there really isn’t enough pedestrian traffic to warrant both of them. The sidewalk on the south-face of the bridge doesn’t have a stairway leading up to the bridge from Glendale Blvd., or from Riverside Dr., nor does it have a passage way up to the Waverly Bridge as the north-face sidewalk does. In fact, the south-face sidewalk dead ends and forces pedestrians to walk precariously close to traffic. By eliminating it, you eliminate a hazard. This should make sense to anyone advocating for safety and not their own special interest. There are those that will attempt to convince others that all the children of Atwater Village go to Marshall High; this is classic misdirection. Though some still attend Marshall High, the majority of our children are now attending the new schools on San Fernando Rd., The Sotomayer Learning Academies. Using our children to bolster their claims is an example of how low they have gone to advance their agenda. Let’s be smart, let’s make our choice based on facts, not suppositions and innuendos.

Each Exhibit would include: • A pedestrian activated signalized crosswalk traversing the width of Glendale Boulevard, at the base of the complex of bridges in Atwater Village; • A radar activated speed sign posted next to a 35 mph speed limit sign, at the base of the complex of bridges in Atwater Village; • An elevated ADA compliant sidewalk(s) to include a hand rail(s) along the entire length of the bridge, traveling under the Waverly Bridge; • A designated bicycle lane in either direction, with a minimum of a five foot width for each lane; • A pedestrian/bicycle bridge spanning the width of the Los Angeles River, utilizing the existing Red Car pylons; • A reconfiguration of the I-5 NB off ramp to exit at the Victory Memorial flag pole, with a traffic signal allowing for left turns to Riverside Drive

Exhibit 1: would continue to be four lanes of traffic (two west bound & two east bound), a single elevated sidewalk (5’ wide) on the north side of the bridge, and two 5’ wide bicycle lanes. Exhibit 2: would have a road diet of three lanes of traffic (two west bound & one east bound), a single elevated sidewalk (7’ wide) on the north side of the bridge, and two 5’ wide bicycle lanes alongside 3’ wide buffers. Exhibit 3: would have a road diet of three lanes of traffic (two west bound & one east bound), two elevated sidewalks (each 5’ wide) on both the north & south sides of the bridge, and two 5’ wide bicycle lanes alongside 2’ wide buffers.

We definitely need to accommodate the various modes of travel: anticipated motor vehicle growth, the inclusion of bicycle lanes, and pedestrian / handicap access that travels’ the length of the bridge. If Exhibit 2 or 3 were constructed it would seriously restrict the configuration of the bridge for generations. A bottleneck is a very real possibility if one east bound lane were incorporated, especially when you add the pedestrian activated signalized crosswalk at the base of the bridge. With Exhibit 1, if a road diet is shown to be practical, it would be only a matter of reconfiguring the lanes. If it were proven that a second sidewalk is necessary, one can be installed at a later date.

Exhibit 1 affords the practicality and flexibility the surrounding communities need and are calling for. Those of us in Atwater Village have a life long stake here, we aren’t just passing through.

Please keep your comments civil and on topic and refrain from personal attacks. The moderator reserves the right to edit or delete any comments. The Eastsider's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy apply to comments submitted by readers. Required fields are marked *